You’re splitting hairs over a definition that isn’t relevant here (theft and copyright infringement are different things) to defend something that even you agree is bad.

It isn't splitting hairs. The damages are completely different in nature.

With theft, the entire damage is the deprivation. It could be a heirloom or some other object that may have been entrusted to you, something that can never be replaced. Something that you may have needed in your posession to survive (e.g. a car to go to your job).

With a given copyright violation, the damage is that maybe[1] you made less profit than you could have. The potential for profit is not property. Profit isn't guaranteed.

[1] The loss is not certain, because there's no guarantee that the ones consuming the copyrighted content could have even afforded it.